NO! His name is Joe in the engloish musical adaptation, but in the book he has no name. IMDB lists him as Jack, but only because Ed Norton insisted on a name other than "narrator" for the credits. Make some research.

Chloe? I thought of the narrator as Jack but is Tyler who is Chloe. It makes sense to me that Chloe is Tyler Durden. Isn't that who Tyler Durden was based off of, Chloe? So, actually I thought it was Chloe who is Tyler speaking through Jack.

In the movie, he reads stuff like "I am Jack's..." from the articles and then narrates them, to himself, and you hear him narrate it times later in the moive. In the credits it is listed as Narrator. It doesn't say Jack anywhere in the credits I've seen. Sorry, guy who told someone to "[do] some research", but you should also.

In the book, he reads stuff like "I am Joe's..." from the articles and then narrates them, to himself, and you read what he is narrating to himself later in the book. When he confronts Marla about who he is he narrates things like "My parents know my real name". The Narrator never actually SAYS anything in the book as you would traditionally SAY anything in books (i.e., with quotes [" "]).

There is no way on God's green Earth that Chloe is anything more than a skeleton Meryl Streep. Tyler isn't anything involving that cancer victim. How is a man with all that muscle, brain, and charisma based off a dying woman? That is insane. Tyler is kinda like the "Id" of the narrator, the subconscious.

The narrator doesn't have a name in the book OR movie. They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.

I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>

So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.

Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.

They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.

Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ

I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>

So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.

Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.

The narrator doesn't have a name ~~> [b][i]IN[/i][/b]<~~ the book or movie.

in the world of the book or movie, he is never given an actual name. Of course, it can be figured he does HAVE one, but it's never given.

They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.

Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ

[/quote]For the small amount they used the articles in the film, yeah, that's all they really needed to do. If they were going to use the entire article word for word, and use it over and over, they'd need to do a lot more than just change the name. If they were just going to use the line once and that was it they probably could get away with using the entire thing. But for the amount the did use it, (maybe 10 times throughout the film/book?) and just using the first line from it and not the entire article. Just changing the name does a lot to take away from them having to worry about a lawsuit later on. They also did the same thing with the dynamite recipe.

I don't think it is to unreasonable to assume he [i]has[/i] a name. He was probably given a name at birth or while being raised. I'm sure his boss wouldn't hire him without a name. Also, in the book he says that his parents know his name.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
<Gin Rummy>

So just because his name was never flat out told to the reader as his name, nor told or shown (possibly on his driver's license or business card would have been a neat spot) to the viewer in the movie, does not mean that his name was not supposed to be Joe/Jack.

Maybe we as the readers and viewers are supposed to be clever enough to realize his name is Joe/Jack without indiscriminate proof of this fact.

The narrator doesn't have a name ~~> [b][i]IN[/i][/b]<~~ the book or movie.

in the world of the book or movie, he is never given an actual name. Of course, it can be figured he does HAVE one, but it's never given.

They just switched it from Joe to Jack for the film because they couldn't get Reader's Digest to give them the rights to use the articles he reads from so they just changed the name.

Quote:

Am I understanding you correctly that they got around the rights by changing the name because the name (Joe) was part of a quote out of the article? If so, wow that's really all you have to change for it not to be copywright infringement? Wish I knew that in high school... :^Þ

For the small amount they used the articles in the film, yeah, that's all they really needed to do. If they were going to use the entire article word for word, and use it over and over, they'd need to do a lot more than just change the name. If they were just going to use the line once and that was it they probably could get away with using the entire thing. But for the amount the did use it, (maybe 10 times throughout the film/book?) and just using the first line from it and not the entire article. Just changing the name does a lot to take away from them having to worry about a lawsuit later on. They also did the same thing with the dynamite recipe.

I Can't help but think Chuck didn't give the narrator a name just to see how much people would fuss over what the guy should be called, or argue over what his name really is when you look at all the "clues". His name is not of importance (kinda like the suit case in Pulp Fiction with what was in it). But his symbolism and meaning is so important, that it seems unbearable to not refer to him with a name, rather "the narrator". Hell, if you really need him to have a name that bad, call him whatever you want. I like calling him Dave.

i'm sure it's stated somewhere in the audio commentary for the movie that ed norton was told the actual name of the narrator by chuck himself. or chuck might have simply told ed that there was no name.

Does it actually matter what his name is? i think it gives it more edge that we don't know his name. As he can be anyone. Even you. Let's not know or even guess his name. Allow him to be whoever you wish him to be.

Clearly Tuffy, i've got you interested in what the narrative's name might be. We have no idea who these people are on this website and yet, we repily to one another in order to know more about them. I like the ide aof 'I' as i am 'I' or anyone else for that matter. Like, i have no idea if your male or female and it really doesn't matter. we can be whoever we want as the cyber world allows to be so. How's that for pause for thought?

And, in answer to the original post, in the context of the book and the film, the protagonist/narrator is never named. He refers to himself as "Joe"/"Jack" as a narrative device, but that is all. His identity is unknowable.

Mean, for Tuffy this is nice. He just doesn't deal with Silly bullshit, unless he's causing it. Read through most any post in this place and realize that most people around this site dont like dealing with people trying to be philosophical about names and events that really dont matter. When they try to sound smart, by spouting off random bits and phrases, that's when people, Like Tuffy, and half the other regular posters start up. It also helps to not take yourself, and anyone else hear too serious. I have been insulted and hazed quite a bit but as long as you don't act like a little girl with a skinned knee about it, things will work out. I'm not saying that you, Girlslikecultstoo, are doing these things. This is just a general reminder.
And to be fair Tuffy here is just posting his responses and feelings towards your statements, just as you respond to his.
So understand that the people around here are not mean, there just having there fun, you get used to it.

for a woman, i have pretty hard skin. I just felt This tuffy guy had it in for me. I just joined this group for research as i'm studying fight club for English. Looking at what drives men of today to read these sort of books. I've come up with the idea that its to do with the lack of his father within the book. He goes on and on about it.

for a woman, i have pretty hard skin. I just felt This tuffy guy had it in for me. I just joined this group for research as i'm studying fight club for English. Looking at what drives men of today to read these sort of books. I've come up with the idea that its to do with the lack of his father within the book. He goes on and on about it.

Thanks for your comment though.

hard or thick skin? Also I doubt that's why men read Chuck's books and men aren't the only demographic that read Chuck's books. And why would a lack of father be why men read Chuck's books. Sorry if it seems I'm giving you a hard time but I'm really curious as to what your overall argument is.

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.